NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1951 guests online.
|
California devalues 'dollar' coupons by another 8 percentSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 2002-01-06 18:56.
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 7, 2002 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz California devalues 'dollar' coupons by another 8 percent The Associated Press, careful not to insert into its coverage any political prejudice -- let alone factual errors based on a one-sided embrace of command-and-control economic theory discredited since the days of Il Duce -- filed a story out of Sacramento last week on California's move to increase its minimum wage, which now becomes the second highest in the nation. "Thousands of California's hotel, restaurant and store employees got a late Christmas present on New Year's Day," led off AP staffer Jim Wasserman. "It's an 8 percent raise." Of course, Mr. Wasserman could just as accurately have reported that the Grinch will now pay a late visit thousands of California's hotel, restaurant and store employees, who will likely be laid off by employers who can't afford to give them that 8 percent raise. The government could neither afford to, nor does it make any effort to, hand private employers the cash to meet the mandates of such magic wand-waving, you see. If the competitive market made it necessary to pay those entry-level workers 8 percent more -- if unfunded government mandates didn't already cost employers way more than 8 percent above and beyond the visible wages showing up in those workers' paychecks -- and if the quality of those employees' training and work habits made their efforts worth 8 percent more ... chances are they'd be making 8 percent more, already. This marks the second straight year in which California has hiked its minimum wage by 50 cents per hour, bringing legal hourly salaries there to $6.75 -- $1.60 higher than the federal minimum of $5.15. (Growing black and gray "under-the-table" markets pay less, of course -- a general dwindling of respect for the law being another predictable consequence of all such government intrusions.) Only Washington State now has a higher official minimum wage, at $6.90. "This certainly brings us closer to a living wage than we've ever been in the past," said Susan Gard, spokeswoman for the California Industrial Welfare Commission. "It offers some relief for some of the most marginalized workers in the state at a time when they really need it." Actually, of course, hardly any American family is attempting to "live" on a single minimum wage, in California or anywhere else. Such wages usually provide the "first rung on the employment ladder" to part-time students just beginning to develop useful work habits, or to senior citizens who actually don't want to earn "too much," lest their government income transfer payments be reduced. (It's tempting to identify such "Social Security" payments as "old-age pensions," but who ever heard of a legitimate pension or annuity being reduced because you went out and developed another source of income?) Ms. Gard of the IWC is at least correct about how California continues to race ahead of the very inflation caused by such economic meddling. This marks the 19th time that California has raised its minimum wage since it was established at 45 cents an hour in 1943. At 45 cents an hour, a 40-hour week would have purchased only a half ounce of $35 gold during the Roosevelt administration, while 40 hours at $6.75 -- $270 -- buys nearly an ounce of $279 gold today. So, even correcting for the massive inflation induced by such Keynesian interventionism, California has indeed managed to race ahead fast enough to effectively double the "minimum wage" its employers are required to pay an unskilled worker ... and we wonder why so many of our formerly domestic products are now manufactured in Indonesia or Sri Lanka? Meantime, hasn't anyone ever asked why they have to keep doing this every year or two, like rats on a treadmill? Because it doesn't last long, you see. If an hour of unskilled labor is now "worth" seven so-called "dollars" instead of six, all that must really happen, in the end, is that a lot more fiat paper coupons still identified as "dollars" will have to be printed. (See: "Weimar Republic.") The problem California's restaurateurs and hoteliers face is that they don't have the luxury of moving their "manufacturing operations" overseas. "It's ludicrous after the year we've just had to do such a thing right now," protests Jeff King, co-founder of King's Seafood Co., which operates 12 restaurants in the state. "Marginally profitable restaurants will go out of business," Mr. King predicts, asking why the state couldn't "hold off for a while until putting another nail in the coffin of the hospitality industry." Meantime, Golden State officials report union leaders there -- hardly any of whose members earn the minimum wage, anyway -- are already lobbying for another such raise next year. The end result? California's cost of living will increase, while more jobs are destroyed. Still more Californians will flee to comparatively free-market states like Nevada, happy to find work here along with a lower cost of living. Then, about six months down the road, they'll start to ask why their new, more laissez-faire home state can't require greedy businessmen to pay a higher "living wage; you know, like we had back home ..."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $96 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken add new comment | quote | 1007 reads
|
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair TTLB |
Recent comments
1 day 19 hours ago
3 days 1 hour ago
3 days 2 hours ago
1 week 4 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago